News
and New Publications

Regenerative
Agriculture Can Reduce Global Warming

The latest issue of the IPM Practitioner reviews
current research on regenerative agriculture, which is the
use of cover crops, composts, crop rotations, and modifications
in tillage to restore carbon that has been lost from the
soil. Regenerative and organic agriculture may be the key
to reducing global warming.

The average temperature of the earth is increasing, resulting
in climate change and extreme weather conditions such as
drought and flooding. The warming is due to greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. To keep
global warming below 2°C over the next hundred years,
annual atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced
by about 15-20%.

Organic and regenerative agriculture can trap carbon dioxide
in soil. Cover crops absorb carbon dioxide from the air,
producing carbon biomass that is buried in the soil. Feeding
the soil with organic fertilizers such as composts and manure
stores carbon dioxide in soil as carbon compounds. Growing
plants release 10-40% of the carbon compounds they synthesize
from carbon dioxide as root exudates. Soil microbes eat
the nutrients, immobilizing carbon in their bodies and in
the soil.

Conversion of croplands and pastures to organic management
can trap at least 17% of the world’s greenhouse gas
emissions each year. Quick conversion of all crop production
to organic might not be practical, but organic regenerative
methods such as cover crops, crop rotations, no-till and
modified tillage production can be added to conventional
production. Conventional agriculture can be converted into
a form of regenerative agriculture using organic techniques
as a template.

If you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Previous
Posts:

Glyphosate, GMO Soybean Yields and Environmental Pollution

A repeated mantra of the biotechnology industry
is that GMOs are needed because they increase crop yields.
In the case of GMO soybeans, these claims are exaggerated.
Yields generally do not increase. In fact, USDA data show
that to maintain average yields, a 50-70% increase in fertilizer,
a 43% increase in herbicide, and up to 20-fold increases
in acreage treated by fungicides and insecticides are needed.

The increased fertilizer and pesticides are contaminating
water. Nitrogen and phosphate levels in streams are 2-10
times greater than levels known to affect wildlife, causing
the growth of toxic algae. Nearly every stream, river, and
reservoir in heavily farmed regions contain glyphosate and
its degradation products.

Glyphosate is systemic, leaving residues in food. It has
been found in processed food, and 93% of people tested in
the U.S. have glyphosate in their bodies.

Glyphosate sprays can change the soil microbiome, leading
to reduced nitrogen fixation and soil fertility. And GMO
soybeans are seeing increased attacks of insects and disease.

Farmers have adopted GMO soybeans not because of yields,
but because they are easier to grow. Entire fields are aerially
sprayed with herbicide, killing weeds, but sparing the resistant
crop. Farmers jumped to adopt this easy method of weed control.
But the golden promise of better yields with less work has
a darker reality—many weed species have become resistant
to glyphosate.

To solve glyphosate resistance, new GMO crops resistant
to both glyphosate and dicamba have been commercialized.
Dicamba sprays used on soybeans damaged about 3 million
acres of vulnerable crops last year.

This article reviews yields, fertilizer and pesticide use,
and effects of glyphosate sprays on soil microbes and diseases
in GMO soybeans.

If you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Preventing Tick and Mosquito-Borne Diseases

Global warming has led to larger populations of
mosquitoes and ticks. These pests are spreading into new
areas carrying new virulent pathogens. As a result, public
agencies have made prevention of tick and mosquito-borne
diseases a priority.

If you want to avoid tick and mosquito bites, the latest
issue of Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly can help you.
Mosquito bites can be reduced through source reduction,
larval control, traps, exclusion, baits and personal protection
including repellents. New bait stations for adult mosquitoes
show promise, and new commercially available mosquito traps
can be effective.

The number of confirmed Lyme disease cases has doubled in
the U.S. in the last 20 years, and about 75% of Lyme disease
cases in New England result from a tick bite at home.

Home vigilance is important to prevent tickborne diseases,
and an IPM approach is needed. Pesticide sprays alone may
not be effective. For instance, an experiment involving
about 2,000 homes and 10,000 people showed that a 63% reduction
of tick populations had no effect on the incidence of tickborne
diseases.

Tick bites can be prevented by habitat management, exclusion
of deer, bait stations for mice and deer, and personal protection.

This issue also includes new information on neonicotinoid
insecticides and bees, and an editorial about chlorpyrifos
and gene edited food.
If you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

PM for the Western Corn Rootworm

The western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera,
is a billion dollar superbug created through continuous
corn monocultures and pesticide misuse. The rootworm is
a major pest because of prolific reproduction, widespread
dispersal, and resistance both to pesticides and genetically
engineered traits. Many predators eat it only as a last
resort, due to body fluids that are chemically and physically
repelling. Global warming may also be a factor, as warmer
winters may allow more eggs to survive.

The pest has become more of a problem in recent years due
to increased corn plantings and over-reliance on genetic
engineering as the sole management strategy. Growers have
abandoned effective, economical IPM methods that protect
the environment. Our latest issue of the IPM Practitioner
describes an IPM program for the western corn rootworm that
will effectively manage the insect while preventing pesticide
resistance and environmental damage. High corn yields can
be achieved without genetically engineered BT crops and
with minimal pesticide applications.

If you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Global Warming Means More Pathogens

Drought, flooding, and temperature increases associated
with global warming have led to more human pathogens and
increased disease. Pathogens for malaria, Lyme disease,
tickborne encephalitis, yellow fever, and dengue have increased
in incidence or geographical range. These pathogens are
carried by ticks and mosquitoes that are encouraged by moisture
and warm temperatures.

Mosquitoes carrying West Nile, chikungunya, dengue, and
Zika viruses have caused outbreaks of disease in the U.S.
Ticks and mosquitoes carrying virulent pathogens are colonizing
new areas. Infected tick populations have increased, and
U.S. Lyme disease cases have doubled in the last 20 years.
Five new U.S. tickborne pathogens have been discovered in
the last 6 years, and Lyme disease in Canada has increased
10 fold in the last 5 years.

Warmer temperatures and moisture also encourage the growth
of fungi. New fungal diseases are being discovered, and
old ones are becoming more virulent. As a consequence, fungi
are contributing to amphibian decline and are killing millions
of bats. Pathogenic tropical fungi such as Cryptococcus
gattii are moving into warming temperate areas. Human deaths
from fungal diseases worldwide now exceed those from malaria
and tuberculosis combined.

Nutrient runoff from flooding is causing explosive growth
of toxic algae in the oceans, poisoning crabs and shellfish,
and leading to economic impacts on the fishing industry.
And landbased pathogens such as Toxoplasma gondii are being
washed into the oceans, killing dolphins and other marine
animals.

This article documents these problems and provides some
solutions, including IPM methods for management of ticks
and mosquitos.

If
you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.
Glyphosate Toxicity—Smoke or Fire?

Our latest IPM Practitioner includes a brief review
of glyphosate toxicity. There is a lot of confusing and
conflicting information on glyphosate toxicity. Monsanto
consultants have published studies showing that glyphosate
has low toxicity and is unlikely to produce human health
problems. But some researchers have concluded glyphosate
is toxic to human cells, is an endocrine disruptor, can
cause neurological damage, causes breast cancer cells to
proliferate, and can cause liver or kidney damage. Some
of these studies used high doses, others very low doses.
This article tries to clarify the situation.

Key to understanding potential toxicity is likely human
exposures. For instance, the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that glyphosate is a probable
human carcinogen, but the World Health Organization believes
that anticipated dietary exposures are “unlikely to
pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”

Regulatory agencies have established exposure thresholds
below which harm is not likely. The European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) regulatory thresholds for glyphosate are
500 ppb (parts per billion) a day, and operator exposure
thresholds are 100 ppb/day. The U.S. EPA regulatory threshold
of 1750 ppb/day is higher than that of other agencies, and
probably should be set lower.

Some studies have established correlations between pounds
of glyphosate applied and a number of chronic human diseases,
but exposures were not documented. Unfortunately, there
are no good data available on glyphosate exposures. USDA
does not measure residues, and other information is scarce.

This article makes rough estimates of exposures using available
data and compares results with regulatory thresholds. Some
thresholds are potentially exceeded, but dietary exposures
are likely within regulatory limits. However, some research
shows that estimated dietary exposures could cause oxidative
stress and changes in liver enzymes.

This issue also includes updates on the Zika virus, the
latest IPM News, and a Special Pheromone Report from the
2015 Conference of the Entomological Society of America.

If you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Bringing Back the Monarchs, Birds, and Bees

The monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus, is one of the best
known environmental icons. But the migrating monarch is
in trouble. Over the last 20 years, overwintering populations
have dropped by 90%. Glyphosate applications to GMO crops
in the Midwest have killed the milkweed it needs to survive.
Other causes are herbicide applications to roadsides, overuse
of insecticides, destruction of flowering plants and nectar,
and extreme weather conditions caused by global warming.

This Quarterly reviews monarch biology, and outlines a strategy
that will result in Bringing Back the Monarchs. The strategy
includes establishing milkweed and nectar plants, converting
lawns to Monarch Way Stations by sheet mulching, planting
milkweed along highways, and raising awareness of laws designed
to help the monarchs. Lists of the best milkweed and nectar
plants are provided.

Monarch butterflies have survived the dinosaurs and have
probably been migrating for one million years. We should
not let pesticide pollution and human activity destroy them.
Working together, we can bring back the monarchs.

Not just monarchs, but bees and birds are also threatened.
Honey bee colony losses are currently about 44% a year,
and wild bees have also been impacted. Many bird species
are in decline, both rare species and common ones. The Audubon
Society has found that the 10 most common bird species have
seen a 70% decline.

Causes for the decline are similar: pesticide pollution,
development, and loss of habitat. Bees can be encouraged
by providing nesting sites and floral resources. Birds will
respond to plantings that provide seeds and nectar. Lists
of flowering plants that will encourage birds and bees are
provided.

Overall, this issue provides a pathway to a balanced garden
with increased pollination, increased biocontrol, and enhanced
habitat for birds, bees, and monarchs.

If
you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Genetic
Engineering and Pest Control

The lead article in our latest issue, is Genetic Engineering
and Pest Control. About 20 years ago, the first transgenic
crops engineered for pest control were commercialized. These
transgenic crops have been controversial, and about 90%
of the U.S. population would like to see these crops labeled
as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

These crops have led to unexpected problems, such as destruction
of monarch butterfly habitat, contamination of soil and
water with pesticides, reduction of amphibian populations,
and in some cases increased soil pathogens.

Another consequence is systemic exposure to glyphosate,
neonicotinoid, and Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides in
our food supply. There are questions about safety that have
not been fully answered with rat toxicology experiments.

Overuse of these crops has led to resistant insects, resistant
weeds and other problems. To fix the problems that genetic
engineering has caused, new crops have been created that
will lead to increased pesticide use, and again to loss
of efficacy—truly a genetic treadmill.

Insects are also being engineered for pest control applications.
Releases planned are either self limiting or sustaining.
Self limiting transgenics will die out after a few generations.
Sustaining releases will use CRISPR gene drives to transform
or eliminate entire species. An example is the Aedes aegypti
mosquito.

GE crops brought unexpected problems, and engineered insects
represent an escalation of risks. Engineered insects also
pose ethical questions. Should we transform or eliminate
a wild species just to solve a pest or pesticide problem?
Should corporations be allowed to produce the corporate
bee, a transgenic resistant to neonicotinoids and other
proprietary pesticides?

Mass releases of transgenic organisms to solve a pest or
pesticide problem is a subject too important to be left
to corporations and regulators. Transformation or elimination
of a wild species should be a topic debated by the entire
society. Once the transgene genie is released, it may be
impossible to put it back into the bottle.

This issue also contains an update on Zika Virus and Birth
Defects. About 11,000 women who gave birth in Brazil in
2015 were likely infected with Zika. About 4,000 babies
were born with birth defects. Zika may be interacting with
agrochemicals or other factors to cause the problem.

If you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

IPM for Spotted Wing Drosophila

Spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii, is a tiny fruit
fly causing big trouble. Its quick reproduction time, lack
of competition or natural enemies, increased survival due
to global warming, and dispersal in infested fruit shipments
has allowed it to spread with astonishing speed. In five
years, this invasive insect has spread completely through
the U.S. It is now an established pest in many fruit production
areas.

It lays its eggs in ripe fruit just before harvest, targeting
raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, strawberries, stone
fruit such as cherries and peaches, and even grapes and
figs. Fruit full of maggots cannot be sold, and 20% crop
loss is typical. Economic damage in just California, Oregon,
and Washington can be $500 million each year.

The pest attacks both commercial crops and backyard fruit.
It has a wide host range, switching to an alternate host
when preferred food is not available. When it overwinters,
it may choose non-host plants for shelter.

This article outlines an IPM approach that can manage the
pest, while sparing bees and beneficial insects. IPM methods
include monitoring, early cultivars, sanitation, mass trapping,
repellents, netting, biological controls, and biopesticide
sprays.

If you
want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each, including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

The IPM Practitioner’s 2015 Directory of Least-Toxic
Pest Control Products

The IPM Practitioner’s 2015 Directory of Least-Toxic
Pest Control Products contains more than 2000 products produced
by more than 600 suppliers. The Directory is unique because
it is compiled by IPM technical experts, includes specific
product descriptions, and is organized in concert with the
IPM decision making process. Thus, it is easy to find a
biological control for an aphid, a pheromone for a moth,
or a bait for an ant. The Directory gives contact information
and access to suppliers of biocontrol products, traps, pheromones,
physical controls, tools, barriers, and least-toxic chemical
control products. The Directory is a valuable asset for
anyone trying to practice IPM and reduce pesticide exposures.
Products listed are useful for structural pest control,
greenhouse production, home gardening, and organic farming.

Those who want to buy a hard copy of this 48-page resource
can order it from the Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC),
PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707. Cost is $15 including mailing
and handling. California residents add 9% sales tax. A convenient
order form is available here.

Hard copies of the Directory are excellent assets for IPM
Training Programs and Conferences. Quantity discounts are
available until supplies run out. Call BIRC at 510-524-2567
or email us at birc@igc.org for a price quote.

Acknowledgement The 2015 Directory of Least-Toxic Pest Control
Products was supported, in part, through a grant from StopWaste.Org.
BIRC is extremely grateful to StopWaste.Org for its assistance
in producing the Directory.

Bees Attracted to Neonicotinoids

The lead article of our new publication reviews the latest
information on neonicotinoids and bees. The USDA has just
released a beekeeper survey showing that more than 40% of
U.S. commercial honey colonies were lost last year. Pesticides
are one of the problems, and bees are actually attracted
to neonicotinoids at concentrations seen in nectar and pollen.

Neonicotinoid concentrations in pollen and nectar from canola
seed treatments are large enough to reduce field densities
of wild bees. Seed treatments may not even be needed, as
no yield increases are generally seen in seed-treated soybeans.
As a precaution, the EPA has stopped approving new outdoor
uses of neonicotinoids.

In another article, we discuss the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) study showing glyphosate is
a probable human carcinogen. We briefly review glyphosate
toxicology. Exposure to glyphosate is widespread. Millions
of pounds are used each year, and there is evidence that
applicators absorb and excrete it. Amounts found on soybeans
in the marketplace can exceed the EPA standards for glyphosate
in drinking water.

Finally, we review cutting edge research on pheromone technology
from 16 presentations given at the Entomological Society
of America’s 2014 Conference. Plant volatiles are
being used to enhance pheromone attraction. Pheromone mass
trapping has become more practical. Pheromone dispersal
technology is being applied to attract pollinating bees.
Pheromone sources such as puffers reduce labor costs, and
structural pest control is benefitting from an Argentine
ant trail pheromone.

If you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Protecting Amphibians from Pesticides

Our latest publication reviews the connection between pesticides
and amphibian decline. In some cases, amphibians are killed
directly upon exposure. There are also sublethal effects
such as delayed metamorphosis, increased predation, reduced
size, reproductive problems, deformities, and depressed
immune systems that lead to destruction. We identify which
pesticides are causing the worst damage.

Amphibians are exposed through direct overspray, pesticide
drift, rainfall, and runoff into water bodies. About 83%
of urban streams and 57% of agricultural streams are contaminated
with enough pesticide to be hazardous to aquatic life. Windblown
pesticides from aerial applications are killing amphibians
in remote mountain areas.

We also provide solutions to the problem. Some pesticides
such as glyphosate, atrazine, endosulfan, chlorpyrifos,
and chlorthalonil should be used much less or restricted.
Glyphosate and atrazine together represent 30% of all conventional
pesticides used in the U.S.

We can also protect amphibians by using IPM methods in agriculture,
homes, gardens, and professional landscapes. A combination
of cultural methods, resistant plants, conservation biocontrol,
and reduced risk pesticides can be effective.

Buying organic food, replacing lawns with native plants,
creating backyard water gardens, helping with wetland restoration,
and using mechanical methods, mulches, and competitive plantings
for weed control can help protect amphibians from pesticides.

Backyard gardens with resources for amphibians, birds, butterflies,
bees and beneficial insects are aesthetically pleasing and
can help prevent the relentless slide of amphibians toward
extinction.

If
you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

New IPM Methods for Bed Bugs

If you have bed bugs, do not panic. Our latest publication
reviews new IPM methods for bed bug control. Because bed
bugs are resistant to many pesticides, pesticide applications
alone are generally not effective. Pest management professionals
are using IPM methods such as prevention, monitoring, vacuuming,
mattress encasements, traps, repellents, heat and steam,
cold, fumigation and reduced risk pesticides.

Heat, carbon dioxide fumigation, and treatments with amphorous
silica such as diatomaceous earth or silica gel can be very
effective. New traps and pheromones are making detection
easier. Reduced risk pesticides such as neem and essential
oils can provide relief.
IPM methods reviewed in this publication can reduce pesticide
applications by 96%, and in some cases, bed bugs can be
controlled entirely by non-chemical methods.

Can Bed Bugs Carry Ebola?

The second article in this publication reviews the relationship
between bed bugs and pathogens. Bed bug bites can cause
extreme irritation, psychological problems, allergic reactions
and asthma. But bed bugs also can carry pathogens on, and
inside their bodies, and can excrete pathogens in their
feces.

Bed bug vector competence for human diseases has never been
proven, but mechanical transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi,
which causes Chagas disease, has been shown in the laboratory.
There are strong suspicions that hepatitis B can be transmitted
in this way.

Ebola is spread by touching infected humans and their belongings,
and the Ebola virus can persist in the environment from
14 to 50 days. Since bed bugs can pick up pathogens from
human skin and carry them on their bodies, they may be able
to passively carry Ebola in this way. Bed bugs have been
shown to ingest and excrete pathogens such as Q fever, caused
by Coxiella burnetii, and HIV. If other pathogens can be
carried in this way, they can probably carry Ebola. Whether
or not they can actually transmit the disease depends on
amount of virus needed to initiate human infection.

Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

What
Are You Eating? Labeling Genetically Engineered Food (GMOs)

Our latest publication reviews labeling of genetically engineered
food. These products are not labeled despite the fact that
90% of Americans support labeling. GMOs are labeled in Europe,
but the political process in the U.S. has been paralyzed
due to vigorous lobbying by major corporations.

GMOs should be labeled because they are novel foods, containing
genes and proteins not found in nature. Some GMOs contain
systemic pesticides, and the effects of longterm exposure
to these products have not been fully investigated. Short
term toxicity tests have given conflicting results, and
longterm tests in rodents are few, flawed and hard to interpret.
One by one comparison of known nutrients in substantial
equivalence tests cannot identify all possible sources of
toxicity. New allergens created by the transformation process
may escape detection.

A flood of new products is headed toward the market, including
fresh produce and engineered animals. Overwhelmed regulators
may make mistakes. Labeling is needed because knowledge
of genetics is incomplete, research is still active on recently
commercialized technology, and regulatory failures could
occur. Industry is lobbying for no regulation at all.

Some GMOs are associated with environmental disasters such
as destruction of monarch butterfly habitat and production
of superweeds. A pesticide treadmill of new crops resistant
to 2,4-D and other toxic herbicides will cause increased
environmental pollution and more concentrated herbicide
residues in food.

GMOs should be labeled because consumers are being deprived
of their right to make choices. The courts have ruled that
the way money is spent can be speech, and some legal scholars
believe that food choice is a form of protected speech.

GMOs should also be labeled because America is in the midst
of an epidemic of food related diseases. Those afflicted
with food allergies, asthma, clinical gastric upset, diabetes,
fatty liver and other diseases should have all the information
they need to make changes in their diet.

Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

IPM
for the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

The invasive brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha
halys, has spread to 41 states in the 13 years since
its introduction to the U.S. It is a threat to commercial
agriculture, landscape ornamentals, and backyard gardens.
It is also a structural pest, as large populations invade
houses, trying to overwinter.

The pest is exploding in the U.S. due to lack of specific
natural enemies, prolific reproduction, wide host range,
and effective overwintering strategies. It is cold tolerant
and is reaping the benefits of global warming.

Growers have responded to stink bug proliferation through
increased pesticide applications that are disrupting IPM
programs, causing outbursts of secondary pests such as mites,
aphids, and scales.

Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Protecting
Bees, Birds, and Beneficial Insects from Neonicotinoids

About one-third of the managed honey bee colonies in the
U.S. are dying each year. Part of the problem is exposure
to systemic insecticides called neonicotinoids. Neonics
are applied in field crops, orchards, parks, landscapes,
backyard gardens, on ornamentals, lawns, pets, and in structural
pest control. Some of them are extremely persistent, providing
a large window of exposure. At least 45% of U.S. cropland
is treated.

This new issue of Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly reviews
effects of neonicotinoids on bees, birds, and beneficial
insects. Bees and beneficials are exposed to toxic residues
from sprays, and to poisonous nectar and pollen from systemic
treatments. Predatory insects are killed through secondary
poisoning from consuming pest insects that contain neonics.
The largest impact on birds is through neonic seed treatments.
One treated seed is enough to kill some birds. There are
also sublethal effects on bird reproduction.

This issue also suggests alternatives to neonicotinoid applications.
In almost every case, cultural and ecological changes can
be combined with IPM methods, biological control, biopesticides,
and other low impact pesticides to correct the pest problem.

Avoiding pesticides, choosing native plants, breaking up
monocultures, hedgerow plantings, growing organic gardens,
and buying organic food are some of the choices that we
can make to protect bees, birds, and beneficial insects
from neonicotinoids. Specific plantings are recommended
to encourage bees, birds, butterflies and other pollinators.
IPM methods are suggested to manage pest problems.

If you want to read this publication, please click here.
Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

IPM
for Asian Citrus Psyllid and Huanglongbing Disease

Citrus trees in the U.S., Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere are
being killed by an aphid-like insect called the Asian citrus
psyllid, Diaphorina citri. The insect feeds on the phloem
of Citrus trees. In the U.S., psyllids transmit the bacterium
Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, causing a disease called
citrus greening or huanglongbing (yellow dragon).

The first signs of infection are yellow shoots and leaves
with asymmetric yellow blotches. As the disease develops,
small, green, misshapen fruit with bitter juice drop prematurely,
dramatically reducing yield. After about 3-5 years, infected
trees die, and currently there is no cure.

Both the disease and the psyllid have been found in California,
Texas, and Florida. About 18% of the 60 million sweet orange
trees, Citrus sinensis, in Florida have been infected. The
disease has caused the death of about 40 million citrus
trees worldwide.

Huanglongbing is leading to grower panic and the overuse
of pesticides in a desperate attempt to stop the disease.
As many as 6-15 foliar and 1 to 2 systemic pesticides are
applied each year from five different chemical classes.
This barrage is leading to pesticide resistance and damage
to bees and beneficial insects.

This article reviews IPM methods that can manage the psyllid
and the disease without destroying bees, beneficial insects
and other elements of the environment.

Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support
of the public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible
donation to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member,
or order a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Baits
or Barriers? Field Efficacy of Subterranean Termite Treatments

If you have subterranean termites and cannot decide whether
to use chemical barriers or termite baits, this classic
publication can help you with the problem. Once you decide
between bait or barrier, the article can help you choose
the most effective product and minimize effects on the environment.

The publication draws on field tests conducted by the USDA,
termite research specialists, and the experience of pest
control operators to identify the most effective and least
toxic treatments for subterranean termites.

The publication also has new information about the biology
of termites. New technology has revealed the genetic structure
of termite colonies. Colonies containing thousands of termites
may be produced by one queen. An average property may have
6 genetically independent termite colonies capable of attacking
your home. When your home is attacked, it is usually only
one of these colonies.

The efficacy of termite baits is sometimes questioned. Although
effects are complex, published studies show an expected
efficacy of 85-100%.

Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 8.75% tax? Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out.
BIRC is a non-profit that depends on the support of the
public. If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation
to help us continue our work, become a BIRC member, or order
a publication, use the BIRC order form here.

Bats,
Pesticides and White Nose Syndrome

Millions of bats in the U.S. have been killed by a mysterious
new disease. Death is associated with a fungus, Geomyces
destructans, that attacks their skin. White fungal lesions
appear on their bodies and on their noses, which has led
to the name "white nose syndrome." G. destructans
has attacked at least nine different bat species, and according
to biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more
than 5.5 million bats in 20 states have died since 2006.

The same fungus is present in Europe, but mass die-off of
bats is not happening there. The immune system of U.S. bats
cannot deal with the disease. This article reviews the possible
causes of immune suppression in bats. Pesticide exposure
is one possible cause. Due to their long lifetime and voracious
appetites, bats are vulnerable to accumulation of pesticides
and environmental contaminants. One possible solution to
white nose syndrome is conversion to IPM methods or increased
organic production, especially near areas of bat hibernation.

Bats eat tons of pest insects each year. Loss of bat biological
control worth an estimated $22 billion annually could mean
increased costs for crop production and increased use of
pesticides. Considerable environmental damage from pesticides
is already occurring. Overuse of glyphosate is leading to
habitat destruction for wildlife. Pests are growing resistant
to genetically engineered crops, and application of neonicotinoid
seed treatments are contributing to honey bee death and
decline. Mass die-off of bats could make honey bee problems
worse, due to increased pesticide applications.

If you would like to read this publication, click here.
Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. If you would like to order the publication, click
here.

New
Biopesticides for IPM and Organic Production.

March 2013: This IPM Practitioner publication
reviews the latest biopesticide products. Biopesticides
are either living organisms or have their origins in living
organisms. They are often target specific, benign to beneficial
insects, do not pose air or water quality problems, and
risks to human health are low. Insects are not resistant
to them, and some formulations are certified for organic
production. The publication includes a list of EPA registered
products and suppliers.

Biopesticides include herbicides, fungicides, insecticides
and nematicides. A new bioinsecticide called Grandevo™
should be useful in management of the destructive Asian
citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri. Another bioinsecticide
called MET52™ has potential as a non-chemical treatment
for tick control. This product should be good news in areas
overrun by Lyme disease.

Phaseout of the soil fumigant methyl bromide has led to
registration of toxic and carcinogenic materials such as
1,3-dichloropropene for nematode control. New biopesticides
such as Econem™, Melocon™, and DiTera™
are now available that provide a non-chemical alternative
for nematodes.

Biofungicides such as Rootshield™, Mycostop™,
and Soilgard™ provide non-chemical alternatives for
soilborne pathogens. Products such as Regalia™, Serenade™,
and Sonata™ provide treatment for plant diseases.
Regalia and many of the other products are certified for
organic production.

New bioherbicides have been developed that can help control
weeds without the environmental pollution seen with some
chemical herbicides. Some of these are commercially available,
others are in the last stages of EPA and California registration.

Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. If you would like to order the publication, click
here.

Protecting
Raptors from Rodenticides, a new publication from
BIRC

January 2013: About 13,000 to 20,000 people
each year are poisoned by rodenticides, and most of these
are children. About 80% of the hospitalizations are due
to second generation anticoagulants, mostly brodifacoum.
Of the 95,000 pets poisoned each year, about 74% is due
to brodifacoum. This type of rat poison is also causing
widespread poisoning of wildlife, including raptors.
Brodifacoum is a longlasting poison, and rats can accumulate
30 to 40 times a lethal dose before they die. Raptors that
eat these rats die of secondary poisoning. The problem is
widespread, and may kill 10-20% of raptor populations in
areas where the baits are used. Sublethal effects include
bleeding and disorientation leading to accidents. Poisoned
raptors are also more susceptible to disease.

BIRC’s new publication reviews the problem and proposes
effective, practical alternatives that will provide effective
rat management without killing raptors.

Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. If you would like to order the publication, clickhere.

August 2012: BIRC’s latest publication reviews
the problems resulting from the extensive use of genetically
engineered (GE) crops and systemic pesticides. Production
of GE crops (Roundup Ready™) resistant to the herbicide
glyphosate has resulted in a number of environmental problems,
including an 81% reduction of Midwest monarch butterfly
populations.

Extensive reliance on GE crops with systemic insecticides
from Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) is leading to insect resistance.
The resulting seed treatments with systemic neonicotinoid
insecticides are causing deaths of honey bees.

Dependence on glyphosate for weed management in GE crops
has led to creation of superweeds. The agribusiness solution
is a repeat of the pesticide treadmill—crops engineered
for resistance to multiple herbicides. Planting of these
new crops will at least triple the amount of 2,4-D and other
controversial herbicides being used in agriculture.
A better solution is a return to IPM principles that allow
both sustainable crop production and environmental protection.

Hard copies are $8 each including postage. California residents
add 9% tax. Quantity discounts are available until supplies
run out. If you would like to order the publication, clickhere.

June 2012: BIRC’s latest publication reviews
honey bee death and decline due to extensive use of pesticides.
Chemical analysis of hives in 23 states show bees, pollen,
and wax combs are extensively contaminated with pesticides.

Contributing to the problem is the use of systemics in field
crops, especially corn. Use of systemics means that pesticides
are always present in the plant and mitigation strategies
are impossible. About 45% of U.S. cropland is treated with
systemics and use is increasing each year. In many cases,
systemics are not needed because IPM alternatives are available
that manage pests without killing bees.

This issue also includes an update on urban farming, the
EcoWise IPM Certification Program for pest control professionals,
and the latest information on bed bug pheromones and traps.